Saturday, February 03, 2018

Are immigrants superior to Americans?

David Brooks in a NYT's piece claims that immigrants are superior to Americans--they "outhustle" us. Is this true?

The General Social Survey (GSS) asks non-retired participants about their work status. Let's use full-time employment status as our measure of "hustlers." According to the data, 61.3% of white and 53.4% of black Americans work full-time. For immigrants of all races, it's 56.3%.

Where exactly is the mind-blowing hustle Brooks is referring to? I think Brooks is doing what liberals often do: take a black reality that's troubling and then pretend it's whites who have the problem. For example, private gun ownership is portrayed as scary, and images of white rednecks are drummed up, but progressives are actually afraid of blacks having firearms.

People like Brooks have an instinctive dislike of ordinary whites because this group is seen as actually being capable of organized nastiness, while brown people are not. He is wrong about this. I'm no historian, but I do seem to remember something about whites not doing very well in Haiti around 1791.  


Bruce Charlton said...

My understanding is that the situation in the UK is even more extreme. The UK Establishment push uncontrolled mass immigration (at approx 1 percent of the population per year) as economically necessary (to look-after the ageing native population) -- the reality is an extremely high proportion of lifelong (probably multigenerational) economic dependents - and those who work doing mostly low skill/ low pay (?inessential) jobs in service industries.

But there is a genuine outhustling - which is of course reproduction. The natives don't - the recent arrivals do, a lot.

So biologically-speaking (in the taboo field of demographics) there is a kind of subliminal validity to Brooks's assertion - which may be why it is not immediately absurd to everybody.

Jim Bowery said...

As an avowed white superist as opposed to white supremacist I have a bone to pick about the notion of "superior" presumed by Brooks and Ron. Bacteria out-reproduce humans. The universe of discourse in which that makes bacteria "superior" is one devoid of the moral animal. Whites are superior not because of any "civilized" behavior, such as gainful employment or "cooperation". Eusocial insects, with their sterile castes serving their Hobbesian Leviathan are vastly more "civil" than humans, whites, NE Asian or not.

Whites are superior because of our culture of individual integrity stretching back tens of thousands of years to Cromagnon Man -- a culture instaurating the 600 million years of sexual selection that gave rise to the Cambrian Explosion -- after 6 million years of group selection starting with the chimpanzee human last common ancestor (see E.O. Wilson's "The Social Conquest of Earth").

The much derided "well rounded" student, demanded by the early 20th Century Ivy League, and abandoned as "anti-semitic" in the 1960s, was a pathetic attempt to preserve the culture of individual integrity after it had already been parasitically castrated by "civilizing" influences in the New World. That castration is in the form of "morally" denouncing male intrasexual selection which, for 600 million years until CHLCA, and then, in Europe from 30,000ybp till the neolithic, took the form natural duel between males. Natural duel in Pleistocene Europe took the form of an individual human male, heading a wolf pack, encountering another such "hunting group" in zero-sum conflict over limited winter calories. This wasn't "pistols at 20 paces" or anything resembling "Code Duelo" nor even the monks' travesty of Holmganga in which combatants were supposed to go to an island and then try to stay on a cloth like a boxing ring. No, it was in the wild with enough territory for strategy, individual cunning and self-made tools and weapons used for hunting to be eugenic.

Values... "ought" rather than "is"... are not things to be lightly elided in discourse.